Treating it as an opportunity to experiment in a manner you wouldn't have initially = treating it as a dead rubber

New players have to be introduced to test cricket sometime. Why not in a series where the most important aspect of it has been already decided? If we wait, then it probably be at the start of another series where the actual important (series) result is still on the line.

New players have to be introduced to test cricket sometime. Why not in a series where the most important aspect of it has been already decided? If we wait, then it probably be at the start of another series where the actual important (series) result is still on the line.

See thats where the difference in perception lies. I can only speak from personal experience that retaining the Border Gavaskar Trophy in 2004 was nowhere near as satisfying as winning it in Sydney would have been. I certainly hope the Australian team isn't taking this as light heartedly as you guys are.

The funny thing is, Julian, I'm actually regarded as a bit of a Prior-hating Haddin fanboy by certain members of this forum, and yet I still think you're one. That's how ridiculously extreme your opinions of the situation are - even the known Haddin fans think you're over-the-top.

You seriously suggested that Swann should bat above Prior in Melbourne, FFS. The bloke averages over 40 in Tests with three tons. You've gone mad.

I agree wholeheartedly. Australian cricket is very much geared towards the Ashes, though. Even when they do lose/draw a non-Ashes series, the immediate reaction is usually to discuss the impact it'll have on Ashes preparations and whether the current team is good enough to win the Ashes. That the actual series has been lost is a secondary consideration.

I'm not saying it's right (it isn't, IMO) but it's the way cricket works in this country. It's almost applied to the same extent as other countries building towards a World Cup in ODIs.

I always got that impression more from England TBH. I started reading a lot more of their press after Ashes 2005 and in the buildup to Ashes 2006-07, so my impression is probably a bit influenced by that.

I always got that impression more from England TBH. I started reading a lot more of their press after Ashes 2005 and in the buildup to Ashes 2006-07, so my impression is probably a bit influenced by that.

The attitude wasn't as strong in Australia when England were crap, particularly amongst the younger generation, but since losing the 2005 series in England it's all been very Ashes-centric.

I agree wholeheartedly. Australian cricket is very much geared towards the Ashes, though. Even when they do lose/draw a non-Ashes series, the immediate reaction is usually to discuss the impact it'll have on Ashes preparations and whether the current team is good enough to win the Ashes. That the actual series has been lost is a secondary consideration.

I'm not saying it's right (it isn't, IMO) but it's the way cricket works in this country. It's almost applied to the same extent as other countries building towards a World Cup in ODIs.

Would you say this is a recent change, PEWS? England have had this obsession towards the Ashes for a long time, but Waugh's Australia didn't appear to me as singularly focussed as that.